by Levi Russell
Recently I was part of a blog symposium put together by the International Center for Law and Economics at the Truth on the Market blog. The posts were quite diverse in terms of subject matter and perspective, so I think they're worth a read if you want to get a better understanding of what is going on with the Bayer/Monsanto, Dow/DuPont, and ChemChina/Syngenta mergers and acquisitions. There were some great contributions from the lawyers and economists on the panel and I was humbled to be invited to be a part of it. Below are links to the posts in order of the authors' last names.
Shubha Ghosh - Patents and mergers
Allen Gibby - Conglomerate effects and the incentive to deal reasonably with other providers of complementary products
Ioannis Lianos - Finding your way in the seeds/agro-chem mergers labyrinth
Geoffrey Manne - Innovation-driven market structure in the ag-biotech industry
Diana Moss - Mergers, innovation, and agricultural biotechnology: Putting the squeeze on growers and consumers?
Nicolas Petit - Antitrust review of ag-biotech mergers: Appropriability versus cannibalization
Levi Russell - Contestability theory in the real world
Effects of gene editing on ag-biotech antitrust
Joanna Shepherd - Understanding innovation markets in antitrust analysis
Michael Sykuta - Innovation trends in agriculture and their implications for M & A analysis
Showing posts with label GMOs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMOs. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Friday, November 11, 2016
Have GMOs Benefited Us?
by Levi Russell
A recent NY Times article claimed that GMO crops are not delivering the originally-promised benefits of higher yields and lower pesticide application rates. The article is short, so I recommend reading all of it, but here's how it starts:
A recent NY Times article claimed that GMO crops are not delivering the originally-promised benefits of higher yields and lower pesticide application rates. The article is short, so I recommend reading all of it, but here's how it starts:
About 20 years ago, the United States and Canada began introducing genetic modifications in agriculture. Europe did not embrace the technology, yet it achieved increases in yield and decreases in pesticide use on a par with, or even better than, the United States, where genetically modified crops are widely grown.I later read a couple of articles that provided very detailed responses to the original. One is written by Andrew Kniss, a weed scientist, and the other by Jayson Lusk, an economist. Kniss uses more detailed versions of the data used in the NYT article and discusses the role of toxicity in pesticides. Lusk makes some great points about revealed preference. Both certainly worth a read.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Mandated GMO Labels: A Regressive Tax
by Levi Russell
The predictable effects of mandatory GMO labeling will be felt very soon in Vermont and those with low incomes will be especially hard-hit. Supermarkets in the state will lose some 3,000 products from their shelves. The video on this news story is telling: people don't seem to know much about GMOs and don't really think about the negative effects of mandatory labeling. Anti-GMO organizations such as Greenpeace have been accused of running a fear campaign that isn't supported by scientific evidence. There's no evidence that GMOs are harmful to people, but a law requiring them to be labeled very likely will be.
The federal law passed in the Senate will require companies to use QR codes or dedicated websites to provide information about the presence of genetically modified organisms in their food. The compliance costs associated with this law include the addition of the QR code or website URL to the packaging, the development of the databases with the required information, and the maintenance of this database as farming practices and ingredients change. The latter two will likely be far higher than the former and will affect food prices for the foreseeable future.
Here are some of the potential indirect effects:
1) Less consumer choice - The article linked above shows that this is already becoming a reality. I suspect those 3,000 products will come back to shelves eventually, but the development of new products is now more costly due to the necessity of adding information to GMO databases.
2) Higher prices - Additional costs to food companies will effectively shift the food supply curve to the left and raise prices.
3) Less innovation - Though "very small" food companies are exempted from the rule, many startups are created with the goal of becoming mass-market products (If you don't believe me, just watch an episode of "Shark Tank."). This requirement will be another cobweb of red tape these companies have to get through to get on consumer shelves.
Maybe all these costs are worth it. Given the lack of scientific evidence of harm and the fact that humans have been modifying the genetics of food in a far more haphazard way for a very, very long time, I have my doubts. The reality is that the costs mentioned above will fall disproportionately on those with the lowest incomes. Those with moderate to high incomes will be able to pay more for the food they really want, but for those who spend a substantial portion of their income on food already will find it harder to make other ends meet.
The predictable effects of mandatory GMO labeling will be felt very soon in Vermont and those with low incomes will be especially hard-hit. Supermarkets in the state will lose some 3,000 products from their shelves. The video on this news story is telling: people don't seem to know much about GMOs and don't really think about the negative effects of mandatory labeling. Anti-GMO organizations such as Greenpeace have been accused of running a fear campaign that isn't supported by scientific evidence. There's no evidence that GMOs are harmful to people, but a law requiring them to be labeled very likely will be.
The federal law passed in the Senate will require companies to use QR codes or dedicated websites to provide information about the presence of genetically modified organisms in their food. The compliance costs associated with this law include the addition of the QR code or website URL to the packaging, the development of the databases with the required information, and the maintenance of this database as farming practices and ingredients change. The latter two will likely be far higher than the former and will affect food prices for the foreseeable future.
Here are some of the potential indirect effects:
1) Less consumer choice - The article linked above shows that this is already becoming a reality. I suspect those 3,000 products will come back to shelves eventually, but the development of new products is now more costly due to the necessity of adding information to GMO databases.
2) Higher prices - Additional costs to food companies will effectively shift the food supply curve to the left and raise prices.
3) Less innovation - Though "very small" food companies are exempted from the rule, many startups are created with the goal of becoming mass-market products (If you don't believe me, just watch an episode of "Shark Tank."). This requirement will be another cobweb of red tape these companies have to get through to get on consumer shelves.
Maybe all these costs are worth it. Given the lack of scientific evidence of harm and the fact that humans have been modifying the genetics of food in a far more haphazard way for a very, very long time, I have my doubts. The reality is that the costs mentioned above will fall disproportionately on those with the lowest incomes. Those with moderate to high incomes will be able to pay more for the food they really want, but for those who spend a substantial portion of their income on food already will find it harder to make other ends meet.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
The GMO Knowledge Gap
GAINESVILLE, Fla. --- While consumers are aware of genetically modified crops and food, their knowledge level is limited and often at odds with the facts, according to a newly published study by a University of Florida researcher.
Last year, Brandon McFadden, an assistant professor of food and resource economics at the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, published a study that showed scientific facts scarcely change consumers’ impressions of genetically modified food and other organisms.
Consumer polls are often cited in policy debates about genetically modified food labeling. This is especially true when discussing whether food that is genetically modified should carry mandatory labels, McFadden said. In conducting their current study, McFadden and his colleague, Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University, wanted to know what data supported consumers’ beliefs about genetically modified food and gain a better understanding of preferences for a mandatory label.
So he conducted the survey to better understand what consumers know about biotechnology, breeding techniques and label preferences for GM foods.
Researchers used an online survey of 1,004 participants that asked questions to measure consumers’ knowledge of genetically modified food and organisms. Some of those questions tried to determine objective knowledge of genetically modified organisms, while others aimed to find out consumers’ beliefs about genetically modified foods and crops.
The results led McFadden to conclude that consumers do not know as much about the facts of genetically modified food and crops as they think they do.
Of those sampled, 84 percent supported a mandatory label for food containing genetically modified ingredients. However, 80 percent also supported a mandatory label for food containing DNA, which would result in labeling almost all food.
“Our research indicates that the term ‘GM’ may imply to consumers that genetic modification alters the genetic structure of an organism, while other breeding techniques do not,” McFadden said.
As participants answered questions designed to measure their knowledge of scientific data on genetic modification, respondents seemed to change their statements about the safety of genetically modified foods, McFadden said.
The study is published in the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal.
Last Modified: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:36:46 EDT
Last year, Brandon McFadden, an assistant professor of food and resource economics at the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, published a study that showed scientific facts scarcely change consumers’ impressions of genetically modified food and other organisms.
Consumer polls are often cited in policy debates about genetically modified food labeling. This is especially true when discussing whether food that is genetically modified should carry mandatory labels, McFadden said. In conducting their current study, McFadden and his colleague, Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University, wanted to know what data supported consumers’ beliefs about genetically modified food and gain a better understanding of preferences for a mandatory label.
So he conducted the survey to better understand what consumers know about biotechnology, breeding techniques and label preferences for GM foods.
Researchers used an online survey of 1,004 participants that asked questions to measure consumers’ knowledge of genetically modified food and organisms. Some of those questions tried to determine objective knowledge of genetically modified organisms, while others aimed to find out consumers’ beliefs about genetically modified foods and crops.
The results led McFadden to conclude that consumers do not know as much about the facts of genetically modified food and crops as they think they do.
Of those sampled, 84 percent supported a mandatory label for food containing genetically modified ingredients. However, 80 percent also supported a mandatory label for food containing DNA, which would result in labeling almost all food.
“Our research indicates that the term ‘GM’ may imply to consumers that genetic modification alters the genetic structure of an organism, while other breeding techniques do not,” McFadden said.
As participants answered questions designed to measure their knowledge of scientific data on genetic modification, respondents seemed to change their statements about the safety of genetically modified foods, McFadden said.
The study is published in the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal.
Last Modified: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:36:46 EDT
Saturday, March 19, 2016
GMO Labeling Bootleggers and Baptists
"Bootleggers and Baptists" is a term coined by Clemson economist Bruce Yandle to describe coordination among groups who might seem at first to have very different interests on a given issue. You can find more information in this video or this article.
In this view, the Baptists are the people or groups who explicitly call for a regulation to fix something they don't like. The Bootleggers are the ostensibly unintended beneficiaries of the regulation. Some examples are firms or groups who are "grandfathered in" under a less-strict standard or individuals in possession of a license that increases the costs of entry to potential competitors. Check out the video linked above for a couple of concrete examples.
With that as background, let's move to the case of GMO labeling.
The recent defeat of a bill in the Senate that would prohibit states from creating mandatory labeling requirements for firms gives us a real-world example of the Bootleggers and Baptists phenomenon in the ag sector. In this case, the Baptists are individuals and interest groups calling for GMO labeling requirements.
The bootleggers are companies like Campbell's who support labeling requirements likely knowing that it will increase costs for its competitors. Large firms like Campbell's can more easily bear the costs of regulation than their smaller competitors or potential entrants can. If they simply wanted to tell their customers that their products contained GMOs, they could have started doing so a long, long time ago.
The Bootleggers and Baptists framework can be used to understand the particular features of a lot of regulations. What examples can you think of?
In this view, the Baptists are the people or groups who explicitly call for a regulation to fix something they don't like. The Bootleggers are the ostensibly unintended beneficiaries of the regulation. Some examples are firms or groups who are "grandfathered in" under a less-strict standard or individuals in possession of a license that increases the costs of entry to potential competitors. Check out the video linked above for a couple of concrete examples.
With that as background, let's move to the case of GMO labeling.
The recent defeat of a bill in the Senate that would prohibit states from creating mandatory labeling requirements for firms gives us a real-world example of the Bootleggers and Baptists phenomenon in the ag sector. In this case, the Baptists are individuals and interest groups calling for GMO labeling requirements.
The bootleggers are companies like Campbell's who support labeling requirements likely knowing that it will increase costs for its competitors. Large firms like Campbell's can more easily bear the costs of regulation than their smaller competitors or potential entrants can. If they simply wanted to tell their customers that their products contained GMOs, they could have started doing so a long, long time ago.
The Bootleggers and Baptists framework can be used to understand the particular features of a lot of regulations. What examples can you think of?
Friday, March 11, 2016
Relatively Good Regulation - GMO Edition
In previous posts on food labeling I've discussed food labels and the information they provide as well as possible reasons why a private GMO label hasn't already appeared. In this post, I'll discuss the reasons commodity groups are in favor of federal GMO labeling legislation.
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) recently introduced legislation that would establish federal guidelines for GMO labeling. The law would preempt state mandates for GMO food labels and start an educational campaign for the public on the safety of GMO foods.
The question isn't whether farmers, food companies, and retailers believe the guidelines are good for them financially but whether these guidelines are better than the relevant alternative. I'd wager that food companies would, in an ideal world, prefer to label their food in a manner that maximizes their profit.
Since that world doesn't exist, and there's a credible threat that interest groups in some states will successfully pass legislation mandating GMO labels, federal preemption of such laws is preferable. For producer groups, federal preemption makes it less likely that potential discounts on conventionally-produced food will be passed on to them. Additionally, the cost of educating consumers will not be borne by food companies, retailers, and farmers but by taxpayers.
As I argued in a previous post, the tremendous cost of educating the public on the safety of GMO foods is one possible reason why we haven't seen widespread efforts by food companies or third parties to create a GMO labeling scheme. Another possible reason is the presence of substitute labels. Many consumers who are concerned about the safety of GMO food might be content buying food labeled "organic."
The more I think about it, though, the more I'm convinced that the main reason we haven't seen a third-party, private effort to create a GMO label is that the public generally trusts only the federal government to ensure food safety. It's true we have all sorts of private labels informing consumers of the characteristics of the food they buy, but safety is a separate issue in most people's minds.
The new legislation introduced is likely to be a net benefit to farmers, food companies, and retailers. They'll be shielded from the risk of more onerous regulation at the state level and won't have to bear the cost of educating the public about GMO safety. This makes the bill, from their points of view, relatively good regulation.
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) recently introduced legislation that would establish federal guidelines for GMO labeling. The law would preempt state mandates for GMO food labels and start an educational campaign for the public on the safety of GMO foods.
The question isn't whether farmers, food companies, and retailers believe the guidelines are good for them financially but whether these guidelines are better than the relevant alternative. I'd wager that food companies would, in an ideal world, prefer to label their food in a manner that maximizes their profit.
Since that world doesn't exist, and there's a credible threat that interest groups in some states will successfully pass legislation mandating GMO labels, federal preemption of such laws is preferable. For producer groups, federal preemption makes it less likely that potential discounts on conventionally-produced food will be passed on to them. Additionally, the cost of educating consumers will not be borne by food companies, retailers, and farmers but by taxpayers.
As I argued in a previous post, the tremendous cost of educating the public on the safety of GMO foods is one possible reason why we haven't seen widespread efforts by food companies or third parties to create a GMO labeling scheme. Another possible reason is the presence of substitute labels. Many consumers who are concerned about the safety of GMO food might be content buying food labeled "organic."
The more I think about it, though, the more I'm convinced that the main reason we haven't seen a third-party, private effort to create a GMO label is that the public generally trusts only the federal government to ensure food safety. It's true we have all sorts of private labels informing consumers of the characteristics of the food they buy, but safety is a separate issue in most people's minds.
The new legislation introduced is likely to be a net benefit to farmers, food companies, and retailers. They'll be shielded from the risk of more onerous regulation at the state level and won't have to bear the cost of educating the public about GMO safety. This makes the bill, from their points of view, relatively good regulation.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
GMO Labeling and Market Failure
Three Oklahoma State University ag economists, Eric DeVuyst, Jayson Lusk, and Cheryl DeVuyst, recently published a short fact sheet on GMOs. The whole thing is interesting, but I especially liked #9.
Whether or not that group exists in large enough numbers determines the need for a mandatory label. If most people who want GMO-free products are content buying certified organic products, there's not much of a profit incentive to create another label or certification scheme specifically for GMOs. In that case, the mandatory label isn't necessary either.
If there are a substantial number of people who want a specific label for GMOs and that label doesn't exist, I would conclude that either 1) there's some "hidden" cost out there preventing the creation of that label (see this podcast or read about the "people could be different" fallacy) or 2) this is a textbook case of market failure.
I'm no expert on labeling (I dabble) but it seems to me that most people who don't want to consume GMOs also prefer organic. What do you think? Is this a textbook market failure? Are there costs we aren't counting? Have I missed something?
9. Should food companies be required to label foods with GMOs?Though they aren't the same thing, any product that is USDA certified organic is also GMO free. The only reason I can imagine this wouldn't be a satisfactory solution to the problem of GMO labeling would be that a significant number of people want GMO-free products but don't care if they're certified organic.
There are several existing voluntarily labeling programs, such as the USDA organic certification, which provides consumers choices on this matter in the marketplace. Thus, the question isn't whether GMOs should be labeled, but rather whether labels should be mandatory.
Whether or not that group exists in large enough numbers determines the need for a mandatory label. If most people who want GMO-free products are content buying certified organic products, there's not much of a profit incentive to create another label or certification scheme specifically for GMOs. In that case, the mandatory label isn't necessary either.
If there are a substantial number of people who want a specific label for GMOs and that label doesn't exist, I would conclude that either 1) there's some "hidden" cost out there preventing the creation of that label (see this podcast or read about the "people could be different" fallacy) or 2) this is a textbook case of market failure.
I'm no expert on labeling (I dabble) but it seems to me that most people who don't want to consume GMOs also prefer organic. What do you think? Is this a textbook market failure? Are there costs we aren't counting? Have I missed something?
Monday, July 20, 2015
Confusion on GMOs from Financial Heavyweights
Mark Spitznagel and Nassim Taleb have an interesting article in the NYT attempting to draw an analogy between systemic financial vulnerability and alleged problems with GMOs. They start off by describing some ways in which the financial system was vulnerable leading up to the crash.
I find a lot I can agree with in that section, but my agreement stops in the second half where they attempt to convince the reader that alleged problems with GMOs fit the same patterns. I'll give my thoughts on each of these 5 issues.
I find a lot I can agree with in that section, but my agreement stops in the second half where they attempt to convince the reader that alleged problems with GMOs fit the same patterns. I'll give my thoughts on each of these 5 issues.
First, there has been a tendency to label anyone who dislikes G.M.O.s as anti-science — and put them in the anti-antibiotics, antivaccine, even Luddite category. There is, of course, nothing scientific about the comparison. Nor is the scholastic invocation of a “consensus” a valid scientific argument.
Interestingly, there are similarities between arguments that are pro-G.M.O. and snake oil, the latter having relied on a cosmetic definition of science. The charge of “therapeutic nihilism” was leveled at people who contested snake oil medicine at the turn of the 20th century. (At that time, anything with the appearance of sophistication was considered “progress.”)None of this should be convincing to anyone, as it doesn't have a shred of logic to it. The first paragraph has nothing to do with the usefulness or safety of GMOs, but it does reveal the authors' experience with other people who disagree with them. In the same way, the second paragraph fails to make their point. Just because some of the name calling that exists now is similar to the name calling surrounding snake oil salesmen doesn't mean GMOs are like snake oil in any other way. I would have expected more from both of these men, as they're clearly very intelligent.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Matt Bogard on GMOs and Farm Subsidies
Back in April, Matt Bogard posted a series of questions on GMOs and farm subsidies. As Matt notes, the typical view of ag subsidies is almost completely at odds with the data and relevant research.
I definitely recommend reading the whole thing, so here are his questions:
1) Do farm subsidies encourage farmers to plant biotech or GMO seeds?
2) If subsidies drive the production of commodities and most of these are GMO, aren’t we indirectly subsidizing GMOs?
3) Do farm subsidies make unhealthy foods cheaper and contribute to obesity?
4) Do farm subsidies largely prop up wealthy farmers vs. helping small farmers thrive in a volatile, competitive global and corporate dominated marketplace?
I'm fairly confident that a large percentage of the population would confidently answer "yes" to each of these questions. The reality is either "no" or at least a much less emphatic "maybe."
I definitely recommend reading the whole thing, so here are his questions:
1) Do farm subsidies encourage farmers to plant biotech or GMO seeds?
2) If subsidies drive the production of commodities and most of these are GMO, aren’t we indirectly subsidizing GMOs?
3) Do farm subsidies make unhealthy foods cheaper and contribute to obesity?
4) Do farm subsidies largely prop up wealthy farmers vs. helping small farmers thrive in a volatile, competitive global and corporate dominated marketplace?
I'm fairly confident that a large percentage of the population would confidently answer "yes" to each of these questions. The reality is either "no" or at least a much less emphatic "maybe."
Monday, May 18, 2015
Potpourri
I haven't done one of these in awhile, so I thought it was time to share a handful of links to some great stuff I've read recently.
Richard Ebeling at The Citadel offers a fantastic take down of the Keynesian view of recessions for the layman. It's certainly worth a read for the non-specialist in macro.
The always-insightful Don Boudreaux recently discussed the role of theory in measuring the effects of the minimum wage. He also provided a short note on the role of institutions in economic analysis in response to a reader's question and an interesting take on the economic way of thinking. Very good stuff.
Jayson Lusk recently weighed in on the fight between scientific integrity and consumer sovereignty in the food world. He also provided a short discussion of an article on crop insurance subsidies and risk taking.
John Tamny reviews a recent book on the myriad ways gov't policy has and will negatively affect the millennial generation.
Richard Ebeling at The Citadel offers a fantastic take down of the Keynesian view of recessions for the layman. It's certainly worth a read for the non-specialist in macro.
The always-insightful Don Boudreaux recently discussed the role of theory in measuring the effects of the minimum wage. He also provided a short note on the role of institutions in economic analysis in response to a reader's question and an interesting take on the economic way of thinking. Very good stuff.
Jayson Lusk recently weighed in on the fight between scientific integrity and consumer sovereignty in the food world. He also provided a short discussion of an article on crop insurance subsidies and risk taking.
John Tamny reviews a recent book on the myriad ways gov't policy has and will negatively affect the millennial generation.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Chipotle and GMOs: Irrational Fear or Genius Marketing?
Recently Chipotle announced that its menu will now be entirely GMO free. This is just the latest in a string of actions and announcements that have thrilled anti-GMO groups and drawn the ire of U.S. producers. Their apparent ideological commitment isn't all political; it has had some financial consequences as well. The chain is unable to stock one of their primary meat items and has gone all the way to the Land Down Under for their beef because they ostensibly don't believe U.S.-produced meat is good enough for their customers.
While some may conclude that Chipotle's management are a bunch of anti-science morons, I think they're something like the opposite. The management knows full well, as most of us do, that all the available scientific evidence points to the safety of genetically modified organisms. In fact, a recent study has shown that sweet potatoes have "naturally" (whatever that means) modified their own genome with bacterial genes. Humans have been modifying the genes of our food via cross breeding for a very, very long time. We've simply found a better way to do it.
The anti-GMO movement has created an extremely valuable market opportunity that Chipotle is exploiting with great skill. Chipotle is able to simultaneously appeal to the most extreme anti-GMOers as well as the vast majority of us who only want good-tasting food at a decent price (hold the politics, please).
So are Chipotle's managers pushing an anti-science agenda? Are they preying on the irrational fears of people who live in an echo chamber and refuse to take a dispassionate look at scientific evidence? Some people may like that sort of language, but it really doesn't describe the state of things any better than I have above. Chipotle has acted in an entrepreneurial fashion to provide a product that many people want: tasty food and many others seemingly can't live without: GMO-free food. The consumer truly is king and Chipotle's success is proof positive of that.
While some may conclude that Chipotle's management are a bunch of anti-science morons, I think they're something like the opposite. The management knows full well, as most of us do, that all the available scientific evidence points to the safety of genetically modified organisms. In fact, a recent study has shown that sweet potatoes have "naturally" (whatever that means) modified their own genome with bacterial genes. Humans have been modifying the genes of our food via cross breeding for a very, very long time. We've simply found a better way to do it.
The anti-GMO movement has created an extremely valuable market opportunity that Chipotle is exploiting with great skill. Chipotle is able to simultaneously appeal to the most extreme anti-GMOers as well as the vast majority of us who only want good-tasting food at a decent price (hold the politics, please).
So are Chipotle's managers pushing an anti-science agenda? Are they preying on the irrational fears of people who live in an echo chamber and refuse to take a dispassionate look at scientific evidence? Some people may like that sort of language, but it really doesn't describe the state of things any better than I have above. Chipotle has acted in an entrepreneurial fashion to provide a product that many people want: tasty food and many others seemingly can't live without: GMO-free food. The consumer truly is king and Chipotle's success is proof positive of that.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Potpourri
Matt Bogard provides a commentary on a recent episode of EconTalk with Greg Page, former CEO of Cargill.
Don Boudreaux discusses, in an entertaining fashion, the political economy of K-12 education and here gives an example of where policy "nudging" leads.
Jayson Lusk discusses regulatory costs in the context of GMO wheat varieites.
Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University points to an interesting case of risk compensation, also known as the Peltzman Effect after Sam Peltzman, a Chicago School economist.
Pete Boettke of George Mason University gives an interview on the rise of an important free-market school of economic thought: the Austrian School.
Don Boudreaux discusses, in an entertaining fashion, the political economy of K-12 education and here gives an example of where policy "nudging" leads.
Jayson Lusk discusses regulatory costs in the context of GMO wheat varieites.
Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University points to an interesting case of risk compensation, also known as the Peltzman Effect after Sam Peltzman, a Chicago School economist.
Pete Boettke of George Mason University gives an interview on the rise of an important free-market school of economic thought: the Austrian School.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Potpourri
Jayson Lusk of Oklahoma State University takes on Nassim Taleb's analysis of risk and GMOs. Taleb suggests that catastrophic but statistically improbable events implies we shouldn't use GMOs. Further, he suggests that biologists can't judge risk or causality.
Don Boudreaux of George Mason University has an interesting quotation and short discussion on "sticky wages," one of the fundamental assumptions of Keynesian theory.
With Chipotle on another anti-commercial-ag tirade, here's a post from last year by the world famous Peterson Farm Brothers.
Despite increases in federal gov't spending on cybersecurity, breaches are on the rise.
Nielsen poll suggests that consumers pay more for what they perceive to be "better" food. Of course, this includes food that goes by such scientifically-dubious monikers as "organic" and "all natural." The recent dramatic increases in beef (and therefore calf and breeding stock) prices certainly corroborate this.
McDonald's continues its campaign to assuage the fears of consumers about its food. In this case, it's their french fries.
John Cochrane of the University of Chicago brings up an old paper by former Federal Reserve economist Charles Plosser that reminds us that price deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Don Boudreaux of George Mason University has an interesting quotation and short discussion on "sticky wages," one of the fundamental assumptions of Keynesian theory.
With Chipotle on another anti-commercial-ag tirade, here's a post from last year by the world famous Peterson Farm Brothers.
Despite increases in federal gov't spending on cybersecurity, breaches are on the rise.
Nielsen poll suggests that consumers pay more for what they perceive to be "better" food. Of course, this includes food that goes by such scientifically-dubious monikers as "organic" and "all natural." The recent dramatic increases in beef (and therefore calf and breeding stock) prices certainly corroborate this.
McDonald's continues its campaign to assuage the fears of consumers about its food. In this case, it's their french fries.
John Cochrane of the University of Chicago brings up an old paper by former Federal Reserve economist Charles Plosser that reminds us that price deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Potpourri
Jayson Lusk added some interesting questions to the January 2015 Food Demand Survey. The responses are pure gold.
Elise Hilton discusses new technology for reducing the amount of trash that ends up in landfills. Markets generate conservation behavior when the benefit of reusing or recycling a given resource is greater than the cost. Entrepreneurs are agents of change who create these opportunities.
The Cato Institute Blog has a brief roundup of posts around the blogosphere regarding the "common sense" of a carbon tax.
Jeffrey Dorfman at UGA has some suggestions for budget cuts for the new bicameral Republican majority in congress.
Brent Gloy and David Widmar of Purdue discuss 2015 economic issues related to producers and ag bankers.
Don Boudreaux explains why supposed generous behavior by established firms regarding the minimum wage is likely to limit competition.
Matthew Turner of Brown University discusses the economics of land use regulations in an article at PERC.
Bob Murphy's insightful analysis of the Fed's role in recent oil price moves.
Don Boudreaux links to an interesting graph of world-wide incomes in 1820, 1970, and 2000. This graph shows that increases in income and in income equality can happen simultaneously.
Elise Hilton discusses new technology for reducing the amount of trash that ends up in landfills. Markets generate conservation behavior when the benefit of reusing or recycling a given resource is greater than the cost. Entrepreneurs are agents of change who create these opportunities.
The Cato Institute Blog has a brief roundup of posts around the blogosphere regarding the "common sense" of a carbon tax.
Jeffrey Dorfman at UGA has some suggestions for budget cuts for the new bicameral Republican majority in congress.
Brent Gloy and David Widmar of Purdue discuss 2015 economic issues related to producers and ag bankers.
Don Boudreaux explains why supposed generous behavior by established firms regarding the minimum wage is likely to limit competition.
Matthew Turner of Brown University discusses the economics of land use regulations in an article at PERC.
Bob Murphy's insightful analysis of the Fed's role in recent oil price moves.
Don Boudreaux links to an interesting graph of world-wide incomes in 1820, 1970, and 2000. This graph shows that increases in income and in income equality can happen simultaneously.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)